The Filoque: Why is it important?

[Teflon93]

No, there ticked off because someone has muddled the Fathers’ clear thinking and precision in terminology.

The Latins went on to insist on their mistranslation in Bulgaria into Bulgar and Slavonic, as opposed to the original wording that the Greeks were providing. Then came the heresy to justify modifying the Creed, which the canons of the Councils forbid.

I’m sorry, but I must have missed the authority of the Orthodox regarding heresy. Was this in the Rotary Club rules where heresy is defined by a simple majority vote?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The filioque is not a change in doctrine it is an evolution of doctrine.

Where’s the missing link to the Fathers?

God reveal through Jesus and his Apostles & the prophets of the Old Testament Truths which are called Revealed Truths. From these truths our doctrines have been built upon. That is the reason for all of the Ecunemical councils held by our church.

The Councils were always held because someone had a new and improved view on the Faith, and the Fathers all gathered to say give me that ol’ time religion, and confessed what the Church always believed.

If you go back and read about these councils they were environments where the church could come together and discuss what these doctrines mean. I can probably be very sure that the Apostles did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity as well as we do today. This doctrine as well as most of the doctrine that we as well as your church holds came from many Theological battles on what is Orthodox teaching and what is heresy.

I remember going to a Uniterian Universalist church (they physically recoiled hearing I was Orthodox), who made a poin that the average seminarian today has more theological knowledge than the bishops at Nicea.

“Yes,” I replied, “that’s how the bishops got it right.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sure. The problem is, the Orthodox won’t reunite with the Catholic Church even were the filioque resolved because they will not accept papal authority. THAT is the reason for their continuing schism—the filioque is the fig leaf they use to cover it.

Actually I think we are quite naked about our feelings on the claims of Rome, and we see no reason to cover it with the filioque, IC, mandated clerical celibacy or any of the meriod of innovations in the Faith on Rome’s watch.

As we saw in another thread awhile back, were the filioque resolved this very instant, the Orthodox would come up with another demand.

We have a whole list now. We don’t need to make one up.

The bottom line with schismatics is always, “Why can’t I be Pope?”

Ask Pope St. Leo III.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You keep saying that. What is the heresy again?

In english please. I’m not really interested in hearing about the heresy you get if you translate the creed into klingon.

Chuck

That the Spirit eternally processes from the Son as His source.

Again, the issue is brought out in that your own magisterium will not allow it (now) to be translated back into the original, authoritative text.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m sorry, but I must have missed the authority of the Orthodox regarding heresy. Was this in the Rotary Club rules where heresy is defined by a simple majority vote?

The Fathers at Constaninople assembled in the Second Ecumenical Council were unanimous, and we stand on their authority.

Since those at Toledo rejected the Church’s authority, I’m not sure what rules they followed. Was it a majority? It wasn’t even in the West, let alone the Catholic Church.

I do think it wasn’t a majority rule, but might make right that inserted it at Aachen, but Pope Leo III ordered otherwise.

 

[tdgesq]

I’ve just posted all the occurences of ekporeuomai in the Majority Text (I didn’t look in the Septugint), and noted in passing that although translated in Syriac/Aramaic almost consistently by a single term (npaq) . . . .

That is interesting and informative, and I sincerely mean that, but I don’t see how it advances the argument that there is no other sense in which the words “proceed” and “procedit” can operate.

[T]he Latin Vulgate does not translate it by a single term procedit, so if the Latin wants to use that term from that proof text (John 15:26) then it will have to use it in that sense.

I believe that the Latin Vulgate translates it qui a Patre procedit. It appears what you argue is that because “procedit” is used in place of “ekporeutai” or “ekporeuomenon” that it must always mean that. But procedit is a much more general term, just like the English “proceeds.” Those terms certainly can mean proceeds from a single origin, but that is not their exclusive meaning. In the same sentence I can say that a bird proceeds from its mother (origin) and from the nest. I don’t suggest that this precise example can be analogized to the filioque, but it does demonstrate that these terms are not limited to the same meaning, even in the same sentence, as ekporeuomenon.

I am not bound by the Latin or English to interpret “proceeds from the Father and Son” in the sense of ekporeuomenon for both. With regard to the filioque, St. Maximos Confessor recognized “[Latins] cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as [Greeks] too cannot do.”

Again, that the filioque can’t be translated into Greek without heresy according to present Latin teaching brings out the problem. That procedit can cover procession by perichoresis is irrelevant in this context.

Assuming I understand you correctly on perichoresis - it may be irrelevant to you, but it isn’t to us. We are not limited by our language from affirming both in the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” That you demand it must seems unreasonable to me.

 

[clmowry]

That the Spirit eternally processes from the Son as His source.

Again, the issue is brought out in that your own magisterium will not allow it (now) to be translated back into the original, authoritative text.

I’m sorry, could you show me where the Catholic Church teaches this, again, in english.

Chuck

 

[Montalban]

I’m sorry, could you show me where the Catholic Church teaches this, again, in english.

Chuck

I already did this in post #99. Then you asked (in post #102) where I did this, and in post #108, I referred you to that post. (like in another thread on the Crusades you’re happy to contiually ask for evidence already given)

So here it is (again).
That’s the whole reason to say it’s a ‘double procession’. The Catholic Encyclopaedia takes “procession” as being a point of origin…
“We need not dwell at length on the precise meaning of the Procession in God. (See TRINITY.) It will suffice here to remark that by this word we mean the relation of origin that exists between one Divine Person and another, or between one and the two others as its principle of origin. The Son proceeds from the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son…”
newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

That is, as the Father is the eternal source of the Holy Spirit, the Son, being all that the Father is (except being ‘the Father’) must also be the eternal source of the Holy Spirit.

Here it is in the Catechism…
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/246.htm

As from one principle, because the Son is all that the Father is!

Go on! Ask me again!

 

[Teflon93]

Actually I think we are quite naked about our feelings on the claims of Rome, and we see no reason to cover it with the filioque, IC, mandated clerical celibacy or any of the meriod of innovations in the Faith on Rome’s watch.

Not really. It usually takes several pages in before our Orthodox brethren admit they have a laundry list which “prevent” reunification. For whatever reason, they tend to present the Filioque as the only obstacle, which is why several non-Catholics in this very thread have remarked that it seems like a tiny, niggling point to justify separation for 1,000 years.

So the real answer to the OP is, “It’s not important beyond providing a way for us not to discuss important things, such as Orthodox unwillingness to accept papal authority in any form.”

We have a whole list now. We don’t need to make one up.

Please post it.

Ask Pope St. Leo III.

I will when I see him, but since he’s been dead so long I may not be able to tell you what he says.

 

[Teflon93]

That the Spirit eternally processes from the Son as His source.

Again, the issue is brought out in that your own magisterium will not allow it (now) to be translated back into the original, authoritative text.

Hebrew or Aramaic?

 

[clmowry]

And so, let’s try again.

What is the heresy?

Can you simply state it plainly and clearly instead of re-cutting and pasting the same items?

The “claim” is that the Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit comes form two different sources and that this is heresy.

Correct? Am I misrepresnting the claim?

Let’s be very specific.

Here are the options as I see them:

1.) The Holy Spirit comes from the Father and Not the Son.
2.) The Holy Spirit comes from the Son and Not the Father.
3.) The Holy Spirit comes from the Son and the Father, as one Principle.
4.) The Holy Spirit comes form the Son and the Father, as separate Principles.

So which of these are heresy?
Which one do you think the Catholic Church believes?
Which do you belive?

I originally thought you were saying that we believe 4 and that it is heresy.

But the sources you keep posting seem to indicate that you are saying we believe 3 and that it is heresy.

You believe 1, am I correct?

Chuck

I already did this in post #99. Then you asked (in post #102) where I did this, and in post #108, I referred you to that post. (like in another thread on the Crusades you’re happy to contiually ask for evidence already given)

So here it is (again).
That’s the whole reason to say it’s a ‘double procession’. The Catholic Encyclopaedia takes “procession” as being a point of origin…
“We need not dwell at length on the precise meaning of the Procession in God. (See TRINITY.) It will suffice here to remark that by this word we mean the relation of origin that exists between one Divine Person and another, or between one and the two others as its principle of origin. The Son proceeds from the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son…”
newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

That is, as the Father is the eternal source of the Holy Spirit, the Son, being all that the Father is (except being ‘the Father’) must also be the eternal source of the Holy Spirit.

Here it is in the Catechism…
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/246.htm

As from one principle, because the Son is all that the Father is!

Go on! Ask me again!

 

[smgriz]

God must be having a good laugh over this discussion. As I said before we all believe in the Trinity so leave it at that. The average everyday Catholic does not really know or stress over the Doctrines or teaching of the Church; it seems that the Orthodox do so more. All Doctrines and teachings are important but should not be stressed so adamantly that it causes a such a prolonged rift. Do I believe in the “filioque”? Yes, but I am not going to argue with you over it if you don’t. The most important aspect is faith. The world will end someday and all of us will be judged on our overall behavior and faith–not by “filioque” alone.
So please already 170+ messages are far too many on one subject!!!

thankyou,
griz

 

[ERose]

So it can’t be all that importatn.

But it is implied when the Catechism discusses the origin of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Modernism?

Realistic evaluation of the Theological history of the Church.

I think the Apostles did quite well at Pentacost.

I agree as well.

The Fathers were not making it up at the Councils as they went along, thank you Dan Brown. They were only standing up for what the Church always believed.

The Fathers did not make anything up during the councils concerning Dogma. The purpose of the councils was to determine what the truths are through discussion and argumentation. If you look back in history during the Arian heresy you will discover that it almost won! If not for the Saints that God provided in those times to combat these errors. If these councils were only standing up for what the Church always believed there would have been no reason for them. Just excommunicate the heretics and move on. But that did not happen.

The filioque was a bizarre cure for a heresy that had taken its last breath. The Fathers of the Second Council were combating real Arians, who in their vigor were trying to take over the Church. The Arians at Toledo were asked to be received into the Catholic Church on our terms.

The filioque clause was a truth that had to be defended.

Oh?

Pope St. Leo forbade the adition of “filioque” to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets on St. Peter’s doors so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26).

If this is so then why was it a the 3rd General Council of Toledo in 589 was the filioque clause added in the West?

We’ll stand by the side of the Fathers, including those assembled in the East at New Rome who wrote the Creed, and Pope St. Leo at Old Rome who defended it.

Here are some of the Fathers that stand on our side of this: St Hilary, St Jerome, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Epiphanius, and St Cyril of Alexandria.

 

[ERose]

Actually the Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said: they composed the Creed in particular to smoke out heretics who liked fuzzy wording.

So what you are saying is that if you gave a relatively smart individual a copy of the creed, he would be able to deduce on his own what is absolutely necessary for salvation and also be able understand everything in the creed without and previous instruction on what these statements mean?

I really do not think so. All of the statements in the creed are based upon a good understanding of the doctrines that these statements represent.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That is interesting and informative, and I sincerely mean that, but I don’t see how it advances the argument that there is no other sense in which the words “proceed” and “procedit” can operate.

I believe that the Latin Vulgate translates it qui a Patre procedit. It appears what you argue is that because “procedit” is used in place of “ekporeutai” or “ekporeuomenon” that it must always mean that. But procedit is a much more general term, just like the English “proceeds.” Those terms certainly can mean proceeds from a single origin, but that is not their exclusive meaning. In the same sentence I can say that a bird proceeds from its mother (origin) and from the nest. I don’t suggest that this precise example can be analogized to the filioque, but it does demonstrate that these terms are not limited to the same meaning, even in the same sentence, as ekporeuomenon.

I am not bound by the Latin or English to interpret “proceeds from the Father and Son” in the sense of ekporeuomenon for both. With regard to the filioque, St. Maximos Confessor recognized “[Latins] cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as [Greeks] too cannot do.”

Assuming I understand you correctly on perichoresis - it may be irrelevant to you, but it isn’t to us. We are not limited by our language from affirming both in the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” That you demand it must seems unreasonable to me.

We only ask you use the Fathers words (and Christ’s) as they meant them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hebrew or Aramaic?

The Fathers wrote it in Greek, at the time either still or the just replaced (by Latin) official language of the Church at Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

God must be having a good laugh over this discussion. As I said before we all believe in the Trinity so leave it at that. The average everyday Catholic does not really know or stress over the Doctrines or teaching of the Church; it seems that the Orthodox do so more. All Doctrines and teachings are important but should not be stressed so adamantly that it causes a such a prolonged rift. Do I believe in the “filioque”? Yes, but I am not going to argue with you over it if you don’t. The most important aspect is faith. The world will end someday and all of us will be judged on our overall behavior and faith–not by “filioque” alone.
So please already 170+ messages are far too many on one subject!!!

thankyou,
griz

Many Episcopalians won’t argue with you on the divinity of Christ, so I’m not impressed by “irenic” arguments.

 

[Teflon93]

The Fathers wrote it in Greek, at the time either still or the just replaced (by Latin) official language of the Church at Rome.

Christ spoke in Aramaic and Hebrew, did he not?

You do get my point, I hope.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Was the EO/Catholic split really about this doctirine?

I mean, why was it so important, why did they just for the interests of unity say we don’t really know, it’s vague, etc.

Why is it so important to pin every little thing down like that? Did a lot of theology which the respective Churches were built on depend on their own interpretation of the way the Holy Spirit proceeds?

Confused,

Matthew

Heres another recent thread on the subject;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=166382&highlight=filoque

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Christ spoke in Aramaic and Hebrew, did he not?

You do get my point, I hope.

Yes, the reason why I noted the correspondence between ekporeuomai and npaq.

The term was adopted by the Fathers at Constantinople because it conveys a specific meaning which they wanted to express. The Fathers at Nicea did the same with homoousios, with the Latin translators coined the term “consubstantial” to convey the same meaing. “Procedit” doesn’t do it.

The Fathers at Constantinople were better off than those at Nicea in the term they chose, “ekporeuomai” was actually from Scripture and Christ’s own words recorded there. “Homoousios” had to be adopted, and many objected simply because the word wasn’t biblical (before Protestants gloat, the objectors were Arians ).

Btw, for Mardukm I’d add Christ surely spoke Coptic, at least as a boy.

There is also a good chance He knew Greek, but we have no proof of it.